International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology

and Urban Development

ISSN: 2093-761X (Print) 2093-7628 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsub20

Effect of excess dosages of superplasticizer on the

properties of highly sustainable high-volume fly
ash concrete

Hafiz A. Alaka, Lukumon O. Oyedele & Olalekan L Toriola-Coker

To cite this article: Hafiz A. Alaka, Lukumon O. Oyedele & Olalekan L Toriola-Coker (2016):
Effect of excess dosages of superplasticizer on the properties of highly sustainable high-
volume fly ash concrete, International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban
Development, DOI: 10.1080/2093761X.2016.1167643

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2016.1167643

Published online: 23 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsub20

Download by: [University of Lethbridge] Date: 18 June 2016, At: 00:03

 International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2016.1167643

Effect of excess dosages of superplasticizer on the properties of highly

sustainable high-volume fly ash concrete
Hafiz A. Alakaa, Lukumon O. Oyedelea and Olalekan L Toriola-Cokerb
a
Bristol Enterprise Research and Innovation Centre, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK; bSchool of Built Environment, University of
Salford, Greater Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

It is quite common for researchers to use an excess dosage of superplasticizer to achieve the desired Received 4 July 2015
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

very low water to binder (w/b) ratio required for sustainable high-volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete Accepted 15 March 2016
mixes in order to obtain early strength without reporting on the effects of the excess dosage. This
KEYWORDS
study investigates the effects of such excess dosages on the properties of highly sustainable HVFA Concrete; fly ash;
concrete. Four series of concrete mixes were designed, with Series 0 being the control concrete mix superplasticizer dosage;
containing no fly ash and no superplasticizer. Series 50, 60 and 65 contained HVFA concrete mixes compressive strength;
that had 50, 60 and 65% fly ash content, respectively. Series 50, 60 and 65 contained three similar abrasion resistance;
mixes; in each series, the three mixes were prepared with the maximum dosage of superplasticizer sustainability; flexural
at 2% of the binder by mass, and excess dosages at 3% and 4%, respectively. The effect of the excess strength; tensile splitting
doses on slump, flowability, compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile splitting strength, and strength
abrasion resistance were investigated. The results show that an excess dosage of superplasticizer
helps to achieve increased workability, causes a decrease in abrasion resistance and has no decisive
effect (good or bad) on the compressive, flexural and tensile splitting strengths of HVFA concrete
mixes. An increase in fly ash content in the HVFA concrete mixes resulted in reduced overall flexural
strength, tensile splitting strength and abrasion resistance. Not using a very low w/b ratio, which can
be achieved by using an excess dose of superplasticizer, results in HVFA concrete mixes struggling
to meet the minimum required compressive, flexural and tensile splitting strengths of various
standards. It is concluded that although HVFA concrete, which is normally prepared with a high
dosage of superplasticizer, is highly sustainable, it is not the best for applications such as industrial
floors, where wear and abrasion resistance is of vital importance.

1. Introduction this was the emergence of various studies on using large

One of the unsustainable features of concrete is the cement
production process, which is responsible for approxi-
mately 5% of the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions [1],
hence the efforts to reduce cement content in concrete.
The enhancement of concrete properties, including its
sustainability, brought about by the partial replacement
of cement with fly ash is well known and documented in
the civil engineering materials world. The contribution of
fly ash concrete to the reduction in fly ash as landfill waste
and the cutback on consumption of cement, whose pro-
duction process is energy intensive and causes the deple-
tion of natural resources, makes it a sustainable material
on multiple fronts. The unprecedented and unsustainable
colossal amount of fly ash generated by coal plants how-
ever initiated calls for a substantial increase in the use of
fly ash in cement-related products. The consequence of
proportions of fly ash to replace cement in concrete in
order to produce a highly sustainable concrete [2–7], now
popularly known as high-volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete.
Following pioneering studies on highly sustainable
HVFA concrete by Malhotra and others [8–11], and sub-
sequent studies in the area, HVFA concrete was defined
in terms of the proportion of its constituent materials.
It was defined as concrete with not less than 50% fly ash
replacement of cement by mass, with a water content of
not more than 130 kg/m3 or 0.3 water to binder (w/b) – i.e.
cement and fly ash – ratio, with a cement content of not
more than 200 kg/m3, and with the compulsory use of a
high-range water-reducing admixture (superplasticizer),
among other requirements [12]. Malhotra and Mehta [12]
however also note that anything from 30% fly ash replace-
ment in concrete can be considered high. The furtherance

CONTACT  Lukumon O. Oyedele  ayolook2001@yahoo.co.uk

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2    H. A. Alaka et al.
Table 1. Properties of cement and fly ash used.
Chemical compound
Fineness retained on 45 μm (%)
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
K2O
Na2O
TiO2
SO3
Cl
LOI
Note: LOI = loss on ignition.
in HVFA concrete research was going to help reduce the
unsustainable dumping of fly ash.
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development
Although fly ash, when used in moderate proportions
(i.e. 15% to 20%) as a cement replacement, improves the
rheological properties of concrete [12], HVFA concrete
needs superplasticizer for two reasons: (i) fly ash loses its
ability to improve the rheological properties of concrete
when used in large proportions, and (ii) fly ash slows down
the hydration reaction of concrete, hence HVFA concrete
has a very low rate of early strength gain and thus needs as
little mixing with water as possible to mitigate this effect.
This means that superplasticizer plays a key role in pro-
ducing the highly sustainable HVFA mixes if they are to
be practically useful. The majority of studies involving
large proportions of fly ash in concrete have consequently
employed superplasticizer to reduce the w/b ratio in their
mixes [4,13–18], successfully producing mixes with good
workability and practically acceptable early strength. This
is why Aitcin and Mindess [19] wrote that superplasti-
cizer’s ‘appropriate use increase concrete’s sustainability’
(p. 138). In fact, superplasticizer is regarded as essential
if highly sustainable concrete is to be achieved [19–21].
The concern with some of the HVFA studies however
is that in order to achieve good rheology with extraordi-
narily low w/b ratios below the order of 0.3 and some-
times as critically low as 0.13 [22] while still producing
highly sustainable HVFA concrete with superior strength
properties, an excess dosage of superplasticizer is used
– a process that has been known since the early stages of
HVFA concrete research [23]. Many studies [22,24–28]
have used liquid superplasticizer dosages of between 3%
and 5% of more of cement by mass, despite the normal
dosage range being between 0.5% and 2.5% (considering
that superplasticizers have a similar density to water [29]),
according to the Concrete Institute [30]. This suggests that
more than double the recommended dose is sometimes
used to achieve practically useful highly sustainable HVFA
concrete. Despite claims that an excess dosage of super-
plasticizer may have negative effects on HVFA concrete
Fly ash Cement
32.0 –
49.7 20.020
29.8 3.960
7.4 3.480
3.3 65.350
1.4 1.470
2.6 0.653
1.1 0.350
0.9 -
0.7 2.610
0.1 0.006
3.8 <5%
[23], no study has investigated such an effect, especially
on the properties of set and hardened concrete. Studies
have rather concentrated on the effect of different types of
superplasticizers on HVFA concrete [18,31]. On another
front, superplasticizers are quite expensive [32], hence
their excessive use might be infeasible and/or unsustain-
able in real projects, especially if the gains are minimal
and/or losses are many.
This study thus investigates the effect of excess dosages
of superplasticizer on highly sustainable HVFA concrete
so that excess dosages can be confidently employed, or
avoided when necessary. This will increase the under-
standing of superplasticized HVFA concrete and ensure
it is not used in the wrong situations simply because it is
more sustainable. Low-calcium fly ash was used in propor-
tions of 50%, 60% and 65% of the total mass of cementi-
tious materials to prepare the HVFA concrete mixes. The
maximum dosage of superplasticizer and excess dosages
were varied for different mixes. The effect on slump, flowa-
bility, compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile split-
ting strength, and abrasion resistance were investigated.
2.  Experimental approach
2.1.  Concrete constituent
The cement employed for the experiment was a commer-
cially available ordinary Portland cement strength class
42.5 conforming to CEM I 42.5 N (Portland cement) of
British Standard European Norm (BS EN) 197-1:2011 [33]
(Table 1). The fly ash used was commercially available low
lime fly ash conforming to BS EN 450-1:2012 [34], class
N (Table 1). Graded crushed limestone with a maximum
particle size of 16 mm was used as the coarse aggregate
(Table 2), conforming to BS EN 12620:2013 [35]. Locally
available dry sand with a maximum particle size of 5 mm
was used as fine aggregate (Table 2), conforming to BS
EN 12620:2013 [35]. The water absorption and specific
gravity tests for the aggregates were carried out accord-
ing to BS EN 1097-6:2013 [36]. A commercially available
 International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development   3

Table 2. Properties of aggregates used.

Properties Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate
Maximum aggregate size (mm) 16.00 5.00
Specific gravity 2.68 2.62
SSD absorption (%) 0.46 0.85
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1584.00 1562.00

Note: SSD = saturated surface dry.

Table 3. Proportion of concrete constituents present in the mixes.

Series 0 Series 50 Series 60 Series 65
Mixes CG0 MD2.0F50 ED3.0F50 ED4.0F50 MD2.0F60 ED3.0F60 ED4.0F60 MD2.0F65 ED3.0F65 ED4.0F65
Fly ash (%) 0 50 50 50 60 60 60 65 65 65
Cement (kg/m3) 400 200 200 200 160 160 160 140 140 140
Fly ash (kg/m3) 0 200 200 200 240 240 240 260 260 260
Water (kg/m3) 200 140 140 140 152 152 152 152 152 152
Water/Cement ratio 0.500 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.950 0.950 0.950 1.086 1.086 1.086
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

Water/Binder ratio 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Fine aggregate (kg/m3) 620 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) 1245 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
SP (% of binder) 0 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4

Note: Binder = cement and fly ash; SP = superplasticizer.

liquid superplasticizer which conforms to BS EN 934-
2:2009+A1:2012 [37] was used.
2.2.  Concrete mixture proportions
The main constituents of the HVFA concrete mixes
include cement, fly ash, coarse aggregate, fine aggregate,
water and superplasticizer. The mix proportions were
determine based on Malhotra’s work [38]. Four series
of concrete mixes were designed, with one standing as a
form of control series. Series 0, the control series, com-
prised of only one mix type, prepared with only cement
as the binder and without any superplasticizer. Series
50 comprised of three mixes of HVFA concrete, each
containing 50% fly ash as cement replacement. The mixes
were prepared with fixed powder dosage (cement and fly
ash), sand/coarse aggregate and w/b ratios. For the super-
plasticizer dosage, the maximum dosage of superplas-
ticizer (2% of binder by mass) was used for one mix,
while the two other mixes were prepared with one and
a half times (3%) and twice (i.e. 4%) the maximum dos-
age of superplasticizer. Series 60 and 65 were similarly
comprised of three mixes each, with mixes in the series
containing 60% and 65% fly ash, respectively. The three
mixes in each series contained the maximum dosage,
one and a half times and twice the maximum dosage of
superplasticizer.
Although an effort was made to keep the w/b ratio con-
stant for Series 50, 60 and 65, this was not possible as the
mixes with higher fly ash content required more water
at the maximum dosage of superplasticizer to achieve
acceptable visual workability. Water content was how-
ever successfully kept constant across all Series 60 and
65 mixes (Table 3).
The prescribed maximum superplasticizer dosage
was approximately 2% of cement by mass but as done
generally in HVFA concrete studies this was taken to be
2% of binder (cement and fly ash) by mass. The control
series was named CG0 (i.e. control group with 0% super-
plasticizer and fly ash). In Series 50, a mix type named
MD2.0F50 has MD2.0 representing the maximum dosage
of superplasticizer at 2% of binder by mass, and F50 rep-
resenting the percentage of fly ash content in the binder.
In Series 60, a mix named ED3.0F60 has ED3.0 represent-
ing an excess dosage of superplasticizer at 3% of binder
by mass, and F60 representing the percentage of fly ash
content in the binder. The details of the concrete mixtures
are presented in Table 3.
One controversial aspect of research on the effect of
superplasticizer on HVFA concrete is the pattern of spread
of the w/b ratio across the mix samples. Although the aim
of study should be the main deciding factor, comparable
studies in the past have used different concepts. Some
studies investigated the effect of different types of super-
plasticizer and rightly kept a constant w/b ratio across all
mixes while each type of superplasticizer was applied to
the mixes using a dosage that resulted in a set target slump
[29,31,39]. However, [18] performed similar experiments
using a constant w/b ratio and superplasticizer dosage,
leaving the mixes to have real varying slumps.
Studies that are more similar to this one, i.e. that have
used a single type of superplasticizer to check the effect of
the properties of the superplasticizer on the properties of
the concrete have not been consistent either. Some studies
have tried to consider the real-life situation where a tar-
get slump is set and the superplasticizer is only increased
in order to reduce water content, hence the w/b ratio of
 4    H. A. Alaka et al.

Table 4. Fresh concrete test results.

Series 0 Series 50 Series 60 Series 65
Mixes CG0 MD2.0F50 ED3.0F50 ED4.0F50 MD2.0F60 ED3.0F60 ED4.0F60 MD2.0F65 ED3.0F65 ED4.0F65
Cement (kg/m3) 400 200 200 200 160 160 160 140 140 140
Fly ash (%) 0 50 50 50 60 60 60 65 65 65
Water (kg/m3) 200 140 140 140 152 152 152 152 152 152
Water/binder ratio 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
SP (% of binder) 0 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4
Slump (mm) 90 100 115 120 95 105 105 85 90 95
Flow table (mm) 610 650 730 770 630 690 710 560 590 620
Unit weight (kg/m3) 2350 2298 2315 2331 2304 2313 2320 2300 2312 2316

Note: Binder = cement and fly ash; SP = superplasticizer.

the mixes was reduced as the superplasticizer dosage diameter and 300  mm length was produced for tensile
increased [27,31,40,41]. The aim of this approach is to splitting strength, and 500 mm × 500 mm × 50 mm spec-
give the experiments more practical value. However, this imens were produced for the abrasion test. Three speci-
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

process makes it hard to know the real effect of the super- mens were produced for each testing age. All specimens
plasticizer, as the varied w/b ratio also has an effect on the were demoulded after 48 hours and placed in a tempera-
results. Morin et al. [42] performed a similar experiment ture-regulated curing room at 25°C.
using a constant w/b ratio and only varying the super-
plasticizer content. This ensured that the real effect of the
2.4.  Fresh concrete tests
superplasticizer of the concrete was captured. This is con-
To determine the workability and consistency of the mixes,
sidered to be very experimental, but it actually achieves
the slump test to BS EN12350-2:2009 [48] was carried out
the aim of the study better – hence its adoption (i.e. con-
on each of the mixes and the results were recorded. Also,
stant w/b ratio for mixes with the same fly ash content and
the flow table test to BS EN12350-5:2009 [48] was carried
a varying superplasticizer dosage) in this study (Table 3).
out on each of the mixes and the results were recorded.

2.3.  Preparation and casting of the specimen

Concrete mixing and production was carried out
according to BS EN 206:2013 [43]. A laboratory mixer
was employed for mixing. A target slump of between
50 mm and 90 mm with a maximum allowable deviation
of ± 30 mm was set for all mixes, as stipulated in BS EN
12350-2:2009 [44] and several trial mixes were completed.
During the actual sample production, an initial w/b ratio
of 0.2 was used to start the mixing. After a short period
of about three minutes, superplasticizer mixed with a
‘0.03 w/b ratio’ quantity of water was added, bringing the
total w/b ratio to 0.23. This timing and mixing with water
ensured that the superplasticizer had an optimal effect
on the mixes [31,45–47]. With the knowledge gained
from the trial mixes, extra water was added until a visual
inspection revealed acceptable workability. This process
was undertaken for the mixes containing the maximum
dosage of superplasticizer only. The w/b ratio achieved for
the mix with the maximum superplasticizer dosage was
simply repeated for the two remaining mixes in the same
series (i.e. mixes with excess dosages of superplasticizer)
to allow a fair assessment of the effect of the superplasti-
cizer dosage.
Concrete specimens of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm
height were cast for the compressive strength test. Square
beams of 100 mm × 100 mm × 350 mm were produced
for flexural strength, a cylindrical specimen of 150 mm
2.5.  Hardened concrete tests
The compressive strength of the cylindrical specimen of
100 mm diameter and 200 mm height was determined
according to BS EN 12390-3:2009 [49] using a ‘Controls’
compressive strength machine. The load was applied slowly
at a rate of 0.2 to 0.4 N/mm2. The flexural strength test was
performed on the 100 mm × 100 mm × 350 mm square
beams in accordance with BS EN 12390-5:2009 [50], while
the tensile splitting strength test was performed on the
cylindrical specimens of 150 mm diameter and 300 mm
length in accordance with BS EN 12390-6:2009 [51]. The
abrasion resistance test was performed on the 500 mm ×
500 mm × 50 mm specimens in accordance with BS EN
13892-4:2002 [52] and BS EN 13892-1:2002 [53].
3.  Results and discussion
3.1.  Fresh concrete properties
The results of the fresh concrete tests are given in Table
4. The specified upper limit of a 0.3 w/b ratio for HVFA
concrete according to Malhotra and Mehta [12] was not
achieved with the prescribed maximum dosage of the
superplasticizer. This clearly explains why many studies
end up using an excess dosage. This might also be due to
the type of superplasticizer being used, as some studies
have successfully achieved a very low w/b ratio with not
too high a superplasticizer dosage [16,17]. Tables 3 and
 International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development   5
4 clearly show a reduction in slump value for mixes with
higher content of fly ash, despite such mixes having an
equal or higher w/b ratio. This means that an increase
in fly ash content in HVFA concrete mixes results in an
increase in water demand, as confirmed in many previous
studies [12,38,54]. Hence, the concept of having the high-
est slump value for the HVFA concrete mix with the high-
est percentage of fly ash content (75%) when the w/b ratio
and superplasticizer dosage are kept constant across some
HVFA concrete mixes, as used in some studies [15,55], is
to an extent incomprehensible to the authors of this study.
In a similar case where the superplasticizer dose was
kept constant across mixes and an HVFA concrete mix
with higher fly ash content achieved a relatively lower
w/b ratio and a higher slump [16], the contentious mix
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development
contained a relatively lower fine aggregate content with
a reduction of about 60%; this reduction at least leaves
the chance for speculation as to the reason behind the
achievement.
It appears from the results that using an excess
dosage of superplasticizer helps to reduce the water
demand of the mixes further than the prescribed max-
imum dosage, depicting that an excess dose does not
have a negative effect on the water demand of HVFA
concrete mixes. Nevertheless, the slump and flow table
test results make it appear that the superplasticising
effect per volume of superplasticizer reduces as the
dosage gets more excessive. However, it is very hard
to estimate the proportionality of the reduction of
the superplasticising effect to the excessiveness of the
dosage from the results, since the reduction in slump
and/or flow table values against the increase in super-
plasticizer dose are not uniform across the Series 50,
60 and 65 mixes. This makes it hard to identify the
probable ‘break point’ dosage at which the superplas-
ticising effect starts diminishing. Another point is that
liquid superplasticizers have a certain percentage of
water content whose effect is generally neglected in
most studies, thus a large increase in dosage can effec-
tively result in an increased w/b ratio. For example,
[24] reported that the superplasticizer used in their
research had a water content of 61.5%, meaning that
a superplasticizer excess dose of 4% of binder or 4 l
per 100 kg of binder can result in as much as over 2
l or kg of water per 100 kg of binder, or over 8 kg/m3
of water where 400  kg/m3 of binder is used. Hence,
the modest superplasticising effect applicable at excess
dosage might even be the result of an increased w/b
ratio rather than any chemical action or reaction.
Although the target slumps set for the mixes were
achieved as a result of the experience gained during the
trial mixes, it was not achieved with the required w/b ratio
of 0.3 or less. The target range with a minimum target of
50 mm was selected so as to allow the use of as small an
amount of water as possible for the purpose of improving
the mechanical properties of the mix. The flow table test
also yielded satisfactory results. The pattern differences
in mix flows are similar in proportion to the slump test
results.
Like in other studies [16,17], the results show that an
increase in fly ash content causes a slight reduction in
unit weight when mixes with the same superplasticizer
content of 3% or 4% are compared across the three series
of HVFA concrete mixes. The fact that the Series 0 mix
has a higher unit weight than all the fly ash concrete mixes
confirms the reduction of density due to the presence of fly
ash. However, there seems to be ambiguity in unit weight
results when mixes with 2% superplasticizer content are
compared across Series 50, 60 and 65, as no clear trend
can be deciphered. The initial claims can thus not be made
absolutely. Nonetheless, it makes sense for the weight of the
mixes to reduce with increments in fly ash content since
batching was done by weight and the cement has a higher
density than fly ash [56]. The increase in unit weight due
to an increase in superplasticizer dosage when comparing
mixes in the same series is expected, since all the weights
of all the other constituent materials were kept constant.
3.2.  Compressive strength
The compressive strength test was carried out on the spec-
imens at the ages of 7, 28, 52, 91 and 365 days. The results
are presented in Table 5 and Figures 1 and 2. Clearly, the
compressive strength of all mixes increased with age
(Figures 1 and 2). Each chart in Figure 1 compares the
compressive strength of mixes with the same dosage of
superplasticizer but different percentages of fly ash con-
tent (note that the Series 60 and 65 mixes have the same
w/b ratio), and the CG0 control mix.
As expected, the plain cement control mix gained
over 90% of its one-year strength after 28 days. Although
hydration of cement continued beyond 28 days, it was at
a minimal rate, leading to only a very slight increase in
strength over time (Figure 1). The HVFA mixes strangely
followed a similar trend to that of the CG0 mixes with no
significant gain in strength in the later days. This is not
too surprising, since this study’s necessary experimental
requirement – which is to keep the w/b ratio constant
across mixes with the same percentage of fly ash con-
tent and meet a certain target slump – led to what can be
referred to as an excess w/b ratio for HVFA concrete. The
maximum w/b ratio required to achieve good strength in
HVFA concrete mixes is 0.3 according to Malhotra and
Mehta [12]. Many studies have even used smaller w/b
ratios to achieve good strength results for HVFA mixes
[22,24,25].
 6    H. A. Alaka et al.

Table 5. Compressive strength (MPa) of all mixes at various ages.

Mix W/b ratio SP (% of binder) 7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days
Series 0 CG0 0.50 0 29.60 42.10 43.70 45.50 46.60

Series 50 MD2.0F50 0.35 2 16.50 28.00 31.80 33.20 35.60

ED3.0F50 0.35 3 14.90 26.09 30.85 32.90 35.47
ED4.0F50 0.35 4 13.40 23.96 30.12 33.00 35.52

Series 60 MD2.0F60 0.38 2 15.70 25.20 30.10 32.40 37.20

ED3.0F60 0.38 3 13.79 23.14 29.18 32.15 37.13
ED4.0F60 0.38 4 12.75 21.46 28.47 32.27 37.08

Series 65 MD2.0F65 0.38 2 15.10 24.90 29.30 31.80 37.90

ED3.0F65 0.38 3 12.91 22.76 28.15 31.45 37.79
ED4.0F65 0.38 4 12.46 21.36 27.71 31.29 37.78

Note: Binder = cement and fly ash; SP = superplasticizer.

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

(a) 50
(b) 50
CG0 ED3.0F50 ED3.0F60 ED3.0F65
CG0 MD2.0F50 MD2.0F60 MD2.0F65

40
40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days 7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days

(c) 50 CG0 ED3.0F50 ED3.0F60 ED3.0F65

40

30

20

10

0
7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days

Figure 1. Compressive strength versus age for mixes with superplasticizer content of (a) 2%, (b) 3%, and (c) 4%.

It is clear from Figure 1 that an increase in fly ash
content causes a relatively reduced early strength. This is
because only the cement content goes through the hydra-
tion reaction at the early stage, while the fly ash remains
inactive. Virtually all the early strength could be attributed
to only the cement content in the mix. It can however be
noticed that the activation of fly ash started before one
year (between 91 and 365 days), since mixes with more fly
ash have a higher strength at this age. The fly ash activation
in, and strength gain of, the HVFA concrete mixes contin-
ues beyond the 365-day limit used in this study, and the
mixes might end up gaining more strength than the CG0
mix. However, as previously noted, the ultimate solution
is to use a very small w/b ratio if HVFA concrete is to be
of good early and overall strength [12,15,24,32,38,54,55].
It is only with enough early and better overall strength
that contractors can easily be persuaded to make more use
of highly sustainable HVFA concrete in real-life projects.
Each chart in Figure 2 compares mixes with equal fly
ash content and w/b ratio but different superplasticizer
dosages. The charts show that an increase in superplas-
ticizer leads to a slight reduction in the early strength of
 International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development   7

(a) (b) 50 CG0 MD2.0F60 ED3.0F60 ED4.0F60

50
CG0 MD2.0F50 ED3.0F50 ED4.0F50
40
40

30
30

20
20

10 10

0 0
7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days 7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days

(c) 50 CG0 MD2.0F65 ED3.0F65 ED4.0F65

40
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

30

20

10

0
7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days

Figure 2. Compressive strength versus age for (a) Series 50, (b) Series 60, and (c) Series 65.

HVFA mixes (Series 50, 60, and 65). This effect is probably
due to the water content of the liquid superplasticizer,
which might in turn have led to a slight increase in the
w/b ratio. The charts also show similar mixes with dif-
ferent superplasticizer dosages to have an almost equal
overall strength. This depicts that an excess dosage (twice
the recommended dose at most) of superplasticizer has
no long-term effect on the strength of HVFA concrete.
The results show that an excess dosage can only be really
useful in terms of strength if it helps to reduce the w/b
ratio, since increasing the dose at a constant w/b ratio has
no positive effect on the concrete but a negative effect on
early strength.
3.3.  Flexural strength
Pavement concrete and structural concrete members like
beams, which are generally subjected to bending when
in use, make flexural strength (or modulus of rupture)
very important. This is why flexural strength is one of
the principal factors in concrete pavements. As with the
compressive strength, the flexural strength tests of the
specimens were carried out at the ages of 7, 28, 52, 91 and
365 days. The results are presented in Table 6 and Figure
3. Each chart in Figure 3 compares the flexural strength
of similar mixes with different superplasticizer doses, i.e.
mixes in the same series are compared.
The flexural strength of all mixes increased with age.
As with the compressive strength, the rate of gain of flex-
ural strength of the control mix CG0 expectedly tailed
off drastically at the higher ages of 56, 91 and 365 days,
while the HVFA concrete mixes (Series 50, 60 and 65) did
not perform much better at later ages. This, as initially
explained, is due to the use of a w/b ratio higher than
required for high strength for the Series 50, 60 and 65
mixes. Further, from Table 6 and Figure 3, it can be seen
that an increase in superplasticizer causes a reduction in
flexural strength. This effect tails off as the concrete ages
and is very minimal at later ages when considering Series
50 and 60. The reduced early flexural strength for mixes
with high dosages of superplasticizer might again be due
to the superplasticizer’s water content, since the difference
in early flexural strength of similar mixes with different
superplasticizer doses is small, and the long-term (one-
year) flexural strengths are practically equal. Overall, an
excess dosage of superplasticizer cannot be said to have
had any decisive effect on the flexural strength of the
HVFA concrete mixes in this study.
Comparing Series 60 and 65, which have the same w/b
ratio, it can be deduced from Table 6 (last column) that an
 8    H. A. Alaka et al.

Table 6. Flexural strength (MPa) of all mixes at various ages.

Mix W/b ratio SP (% of binder) 7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days
Series 0 CG0 0.50 0 3.7 4.5 4.7 4.8 5.0

Series 50 MD2.0F50 0.35 2 2.5 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.5

ED3.0F50 0.35 3 2.3 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.4
ED4.0F50 0.35 4 2.0 3.2 3.7 4.1 4.4

Series 60 MD2.0F60 0.38 2 2.3 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.4

ED3.0F60 0.38 3 2.0 3.1 3.7 3.9 4.4
ED4.0F60 0.38 4 1.9 2.9 3.6 3.8 4.2

Series 65 MD2.0F65 0.38 2 2.2 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.3

ED3.0F65 0.38 3 1.9 2.9 3.5 3.9 4.2
ED4.0F65 0.38 4 1.8 2.8 3.4 3.8 4.1

Note: Binder = cement and fly ash; SP = superplasticizer.

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

(a) 6 (b) 6
CG0 MD2.0F60 ED3.0F60 ED4.0F60
CG0 MD2.0F50 ED3.0F50 ED4.0F50
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days 7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days

(c) 6
CG0 MD2.0F65 ED3.0F65 ED4.0F65
5

0
7 days 28 days 56 days 91 days 365 days

Figure 3. Flexural strength versus age for (a) Series 50, (b) Series 60, and (c) Series 65.

increase in fly ash seems to cause a reduction in overall flexural
strength. In all, no HVFA concrete mix achieved the mini-
mum 4.0 MPa 28-day flexural strength requirement of the
British Airport Authority for pavement construction concrete
[57] or superior flexural strength compared to the CG0 control
mix at later ages. Obviously a lower w/b ratio will be needed to
achieve this; however, that is not the aim of this study.
3.4.  Tensile splitting strength
Tensile splitting strength tests of the specimens were
­carried out at the ages of 7, 28, 91 and 365  days. The
results are presented in Table 7 and Figure 4. Each chart
in Figure 4 compares the tensile splitting strength of sim-
ilar mixes with different superplasticizer doses, i.e. mixes
in the same series. The trend in the results is quite similar
to that of the flexural strength. This is expected, as both
are measures of the tensile strength of concrete. The split-
ting tensile strength of all groups increased with age. The
rate of strength gain for the control mix CG0 drastically
reduced at later ages between 91 and 365 days. The HVFA
concrete mixes, i.e. Series 50, 60 and 65, did not gain a
lot of tensile splitting strength at these later stages either,
 International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development   9

Table 7. Tensile splitting strength (MPa) of all mixes at various ages.

Mix W/b ratio SP (% of binder) 7 days 28 days 91 days 365 days
Series 0 CG0 0.50 0 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.7

Series 50 MD2.0F50 0.35 2 2.0 2.8 3.1 3.5

ED3.0F50 0.35 3 1.8 2.6 3.1 3.4
ED4.0F50 0.35 4 1.6 2.4 3.2 3.5

Series 60 MD2.0F60 0.38 2 1.8 2.7 3.3 3.4

ED3.0F60 0.38 3 1.7 2.6 3.3 3.3
ED4.0F60 0.38 4 1.5 2.5 3.2 3.3

Series 65 MD2.0F65 0.38 2 1.7 2.4 3.0 3.2

ED3.0F65 0.38 3 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.1
ED4.0F65 0.38 4 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.0

Note: Binder = cement and fly ash; SP = superplasticizer.

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

(a) (b)
4 CG0 MD2.0F50 ED3.0F50 ED4.0F50 4
CG0 MD2.0F60 ED3.0F60 ED4.0F60
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
7 days 28 days 91 days 365 days 7 days 28 days 91 days 365 days

(c)
4 CG0 MD2.0F65 ED3.0F65 ED4.0F65
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
7 days 28 days 91 days 365 days

Figure 4. Tensile splitting strength versus age for (a) Series 50, (b) Series 60, and (c) Series 65.

as the mixing water was more than required to attain
high-strength results. From Table 7 and Figure 4, it can
be seen that an increase in superplasticizer dose can result
in a reduction in tensile splitting strength. This response
diminishes as the concrete ages however, and becomes
almost negligible at later ages, especially at 365 days.
As shown in Table 7, only two mixes – CG0 and
MD2.0F50 – met the minimum required 7-day tensile
splitting strength of 1.85 MPa specified for road construc-
tion concrete by the British Department of Transport
[58], although ED3.0F50 and MD2.0F60 were close at
1.80  MPa. MD2.0F50 is the mix with the least fly ash
content and smallest superplasticizer dosage. This might
suggest that an increase in fly ash content and superplas-
ticizer dosage can cause an adverse effect on HVFA con-
crete mixes. The negative fly ash effect can be seen from
comparing the Series 60 mixes to the corresponding Series
65 mixes. The only difference between these mixes is the
fly ash content, and the Series 60 mixes, with lower fly ash
content, have relatively higher tensile strengths. Judging
by how small the effect of the superplasticizer is on the
mixes, and its diminishing effect at later ages, the dosage
 10    H. A. Alaka et al.

Table 8. Wear depth (μm) of all mixes at various ages.

Mix W/b ratio SP (% of binder) 28 days 91 days 365 days
Series 0 CG0 0.50 0 200 180 140

Series 50 MD2.0F50 0.35 2 250 220 190

ED3.0F50 0.35 3 290 250 230
ED4.0F50 0.35 4 300 270 240

Series 60 MD2.0F60 0.38 2 290 250 220

ED3.0F60 0.38 3 310 280 250
ED4.0F60 0.38 4 330 300 260

Series 65 MD2.0F65 0.38 2 310 270 250

ED3.0F65 0.38 3 330 300 270
ED4.0F65 0.38 4 350 320 280

Note: Binder = cement and fly ash; SP = superplasticizer.

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

(a) 350 (b) 350

300 300

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400

CG0 MD2.0F50 MD2.0F60 MD2.0F65 CG0 ED3.0F50 ED3.0F60 ED3.0F65

(c) 350

300

250

200

150

100
0 100 200 300 400

CG0 ED4.0F50 ED4.0F60 ED4.0F65

Figure 5. Wear or abrasion depth (μm) versus age for mixes with superplasticizer content of (a) 2%, (b) 3%, and (c) 4%.

of superplasticizer cannot be strongly concluded to have
a definitive effect on the tensile splitting strength of the
HVFA concrete mixes.
3.5.  Abrasion resistance test
Abrasion resistance tests were carried out at the ages of
28, 91 and 365 days. In each case, the abrasion machine
was operated on the specimens until 2850 (±5) revolu-
tions were completed, as specified in BS EN 13892-4:2002
[52]. This took about 15 minutes. The results of the tests
are presented in Table 8 and Figures 5 and 6. Each chart
in Figure 5 compares the abrasion or wear depth (μm)
of mixes with equal superplasticizer dosage but different
percentages of fly ash content, while those in Figure 6
compare mixes with equal percentages of fly ash content
but different superplasticizer dosages, i.e. mixes in the
same series.
As expected, the abrasion resistance of all mixes
improved with age. Taking account of the fact that the only
difference between the Series 60 and 65 mixes is the fly ash
 International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development   11
(a) 350
300
250
200
150
100
0 100 200 300 400
CG0 MD2.0F50 ED3.0F50 ED4.0F50
(c) 350
300
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development
250
200
150
100
0 100
CG0 MD2.0F65
Figure 6. Wear or abrasion depth (μm) versus age for (a) Series 50, (b) Series 60, and (c) Series 65.
content, the results show that an increase in fly ash content
in HVFA mixes leads to poorer abrasion resistance at all
ages up to one year (Figure 5). This result has also been
obtained in other studies [59,60], although some research
has contradicted this result [61]. While the rate of increase
in abrasion resistance of the control mix CG0 seems to
be somewhat steady between 28 and 365 days, the rate of
increase in abrasion resistance of HVFA concrete mixes
reduced between 91 and 365 days compared to between
28 and 91 days (note that the higher the abrasion value,
the lower the abrasion resistance of the mix).
From Figure 6, where mixes in the same series are com-
pared, it is very clear and evident that an excess dosage or
increase in dosage of superplasticizer causes poorer abra-
sion resistance. The reason for this cannot be established
from these results, so further research is needed in this
area. Excess superplasticizer might also be responsible for
the reduced rate of gain of abrasion resistance of HVFA
concrete mixes between 91 and 365 days. Generally, this
result signifies that too much superplasticizer should be
avoided in concrete mixes to be used in applications such
as industrial floors, where wear and abrasion resistance
are factors of vital importance. If early HVFA concrete
strength is needed and the desired w/b ratio cannot be
achieved with a normal dose of superplasticizer then
(b) 350
300
250
200
150
100
0 100 200 300 400
CG0 MD2.0F60 ED3.0F60 ED4.0F60
200 300 400
ED3.0F65 ED4.0F65
rapid-hardening cement should be employed [12]. The
present results also suggest that HVFA concrete generally
might not be fit for applications such as industrial floors,
where wear and abrasion resistance are of vital impor-
tance, since fly ash also has a negative effect on abrasion
resistance.
4.  Findings on the sustainability of concrete
Concrete remains the most used manmade material, yet it
is highly unsustainable in its simplest form. Its unsustain-
able nature is mainly due to a major constituent material,
i.e. cement, whose demand by the year 2020 is expected
to be 180% higher than in 1990 [1]. Cement production
consumes a large amount of natural resources and energy,
and causes a huge amount of CO2 emission, leading to
environmental degradation. Reducing the consumption
of cement by partly replacing it with a more sustaina-
ble material is obviously a very sustainable and desira-
ble action. The replacement material, i.e. fly ash, being
a troublesome landfill waste produced in millions of
tonnes yearly, makes such an action even more sustain-
able and desirable. The push for the increased use of fly
ash in concrete has led to research that brought about the
creation of HVFA concrete. However, the main problem
 12    H. A. Alaka et al.

with HVFA concrete is its very slow rate of strength gain. dosages – this study investigated the effects of such excess
This has hampered the level of use of HVFA concrete in dosages on HVFA concrete properties. The following con-
real-life projects, thus impeding the sustainability gains clusions are drawn from the results of this study:
made from experimental research into the properties of
1.  Excess dosages of superplasticizer result in a
concrete. Research has proven that using a very small
decrease in abrasion resistance of sustainable
w/b ratio – normally achieved through the use of large
HVFA concrete. Likewise, an increase in the
amounts of superplasticizer – can mitigate the slow rate of
percentage of fly ash content results in poorer
strength gain of HVFA concrete. However, there is a need
abrasion resistance in HVFA concrete.
to establish the effects of these large amounts of super-
2.  Although HVFA concrete, which is normally
plasticizer on HVFA concrete before they are discovered
prepared with a high dosage of superplasticizer,
in practice, at which point contractors and builders can
is highly sustainable, it is not ideal for applica-
be very disappointed and completely lose confidence in a
tions such as industrial floors, where wear and
material that has not yet gained enough confidence as it
abrasion resistance are of vital importance, since
is. This is exactly what this study has investigated.
both fly ash and superplasticizer have negative
The findings show that large amounts or excess dosages
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development

effects on the abrasion resistance of concrete.

of superplasticizer have no substantial effect, negative or
3.  Excess dosages of superplasticizer, compared
positive, on the compressive, flexural and tensile splitting
to the prescribed dosage, can help to increase
strengths of HVFA concrete. This means that it is accept-
workability in terms of the slump and flow of
able to use large amounts of superplasticizer in order
HVFA concrete.
to ensure that highly sustainable HVFA concrete gains
4.  Excess dosages of superplasticizer have no
enough early strength to allow its usage in real-life projects,
quantifiable effect – positive or negative – on the
where compressive, flexural and tensile splitting strengths
compressive strength, flexural strength or ten-
are of great importance. However, findings also show that
sile splitting strength of HVFA concrete.
using large amounts of superplasticizer reduces the abra-
5.  When an excess dosage of superplasticizer is
sion resistance of HVFA concrete – hence, it should not
used, the superplasticising effect per volume
be used for applications such as industrial floors, where
reduces as the dosage increases.
abrasion resistance is of vital importance. This discov-
6.  With ‘not very low’ w/b ratios, as used in this
ery should ensure that contractors and builders do not
study, HVFA concrete mixes will struggle to meet
use superplasticized HVFA concrete for applications to
the minimum required compressive, flexural and
which they are unsuited (e.g. industrial floors) and end
tensile splitting strengths of various standards.
up being disappointed, and losing faith in the material.
7.  When batching is carried out by weight, HVFA
Such eventualities would erode the modest confidence
concrete mixes have lesser unit weights com-
that contractors currently have in HVFA concrete, and
pared to cement-only mixes because fly ash has
hamper the real-life use of this highly sustainable mate-
a lower density than cement.
rial. This study will thus help to ensure that the practical
8.  An increase in fly ash content in HVFA concrete
use of highly sustainable HVFA concrete is not hampered
mixes results in reduced overall flexural strength,
through unsuitable and uninformed use.
tensile splitting strength and abrasion resistance.
Further, the findings show that if there is a strong desire
9.  Good early and long-term (one-year) compres-
to use sustainable fly ash concrete in an industrial floor
sive strength cannot be achieved for HVFA con-
project, for example, then the fly ash content and superplas-
crete if a ‘very low’ w/b ratio is not realized with
ticizer content can be reduced to a minimum, thus ensur-
the aid of superplasticizer.
ing that an excess of superplasticizer is not required. Since
superplasticizer is made from raw materials consuming
chemicals through a carbon emitting industrial process, Disclosure statement
avoiding its unnecessary use is in itself an act that supports
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
sustainability and reduces environmental degradation.
authors.

5. Conclusion
References
Since it is quite common for researchers to use excess dos-
  [1] K. Humphreys and M. Mahasenan, Climate Change.
ages of superplasticizer to achieve the desired very low w/b (Toward a Sustainable Cement Industry, Substudy 8).
ratio in sustainable HVFA concrete so as to obtain early World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
strength – but without reporting on the effects of excess published by Battelle, Geneva, 2002.
 International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development   13
  [2] M. Graciela, Concrete incorporating high volumes of
ASTM Class F fly ash, Cem. Concr. Aggregates 10
(1988), pp. 88–95.  
  [3] D. McDonald, Durability of concrete incorporating high
volumes of fly ash from sources in the U. S, ACI Mater. J.
91 (1994), pp. 632–633.
  [4] C.D. Atiş, High-volume fly ash concrete with high strength  
and low drying shrinkage, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 15 (2003),
pp. 153–156.
  [5] B. Sukumar, K. Nagamani, R. SrinivasaRaghavan, and
R.S. Raghavan, Evaluation of strength at early ages of self-  
compacting concrete with high volume fly ash, Constr.
Build. Mater. 22 (2008), p. 1394.  
  [6] M. Şahmaran and V. Li, Durability properties of micro-
cracked ECC containing high volumes fly ash, Cem.
Concr. Res. 39 (2009), pp. 1033–1043.  
  [7] I. Papayianni and E. Anastasiou, Production of high-
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development
strength concrete using high volume of industrial by-
products, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010), pp. 1412–1417.  
  [8] V. Malhotra, Durability of concrete incorporating high-
volume of low-calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ash, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 12 (1990), pp. 271–277.
  [9]  V.M. Malhotra and K.E. Painter, Early-age strength  
properties, and freezing and thawing resistance of concrete
incorporating high volumes of ASTM class F fly ash, Int. J.
Cem. Compos. Light. Concr. 11 (1989), pp. 37–46.
 [10]  W.S. Langley, G.G. Carette, and V.M. Malhotra,  
Structural concrete incorporating high volumes of ASTM
class fly ash, Mater. J. 86 (1989), pp. 507–514.
  [11] M.M. Alasali and V.M. Malhotra, Role of high-volume
fly ash concrete in controlling expansion due to Alkali-  
Aggregate reaction, ACI Mater. J. 88 (1991), pp. 159–163.
 [12]  V.M. Malhotra and P.K. Mehta, High-Performance,
High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete, Ottawa, Supplementary
Cementing Materials for Sustainable Development Inc,
Canada, 2002.  
  [13] T.R. Naik, S.S. Singh, and M.M. Hossain, Permeability of
High-Strength Concrete Containing Low Cement Factor,  
J. Energ. Eng-ASCE 122 (1996), pp. 21–39.
 [14] R. Siddique, Performance characteristics of high-volume
Class F fly ash concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004), pp.  
487–493.
  [15] A. Duran-Herrera, C.A. Juarez, P. Valdez, and D.P.  
Bentz, Evaluation of sustainable high-volume fly
ash concretes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (2011),
pp. 39–45.  
 [16]  C.H. Huang, S.K. Lin, C.S. Chang, and H.J. Chen,
Mix proportions and mechanical properties of concrete
containing very high-volume of Class F fly ash, Constr.  
Build. Mater. 46 (2013), pp. 71–78.
 [17] O. Kayali and M. Sharfuddin Ahmed, Assessment of  
high volume replacement fly ash concrete – Concept of
performance index, Constr. Build. Mater. 39 (2013), pp.
71–76.
 [18] M. Toledano-Prados, M. Lorenzo-Pesqueira, B. Gonz  
ález-Fonteboa and S. Seara-Paz, Effect of polycarboxylate
superplasticizers on large amounts of fly ash cements,
Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013), pp. 628–635.
  [19] P.-C. Aïtcin and S. Mindess, Sustainability of Concrete,  
Spon Press, London, 2011.
  [20] S. Allah Bakash and B. Krishna Reddy, Increasing the  
sustainability of concrete by using Super Plasticizers -A
Study, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Geotech. Eng. ISSN 02 (2013),
pp. 2319–5347.
[21] M. Santhanam, Evaluation of superplasticizer
performance in concrete, Third International
Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and
Technologies, Kyoto, 2013.
[22] H. Yazıcı, The effect of curing conditions on compressive
strength of ultra high strength concrete with high volume
mineral admixtures, Build. Environ. 42 (2007), pp.
2083–2089.
[23] V.S. Ramachandran, Superplasticizers in concrete, Can.
Build. Dig. 203 (1979), p. 4.
[24] C. Poon, L. Lam and Y. Wong, A study on high strength
concrete prepared with large volumes of low calcium fly
ash, Cem. Concr. Res. (2000), pp. 447–455.
[25] S. Aydın, H. Yazıcı, H. Yiğiter, and B. Baradan, Sulfuric
acid resistance of high-volume fly ash concrete, Build.
Environ. 42 (2007), pp. 717–721.
[26] P. Dinakar, K.G. Babu, and M. Santhanam, Cement &
concrete composites durability properties of high volume
fly ash self compacting concretes, Cem. Concr. Compos.
30 (2008), pp. 880–886.
[27] B. Felekoǧlu and H. Sarikahya, Effect of chemical
structure of polycarboxylate-based superplasticizers on
workability retention of self-compacting concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 22 (2008), pp. 1972–1980.
[28] Y.Y. Chen, B.L.A. Tuan, and C.L. Hwang, Effect of paste
amount on the properties of self-consolidating concrete
containing fly ash and slag, Constr. Build. Mater. 47
(2013), pp. 340–346.
[29] A. Mardani-Aghabaglou, M. Tuyan, G. Yilmaz, Ö. Ariöz,
and K. Ramyar, Effect of different types of superplasticizer
on fresh, rheological and strength properties of self-
consolidating concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013),
pp. 1020–1025.
[30] The Concrete Institute, Admixtures for Concrete, The
Concrete Institute, Midrand, 2013.
[31] E. Tkaczewska, Effect of the superplasticizer type on the
properties of the fly ash blended cement, Constr. Build.
Mater. 70 (2014), pp. 388–393.
[32] V. Malhotra, Superplasticizers in Concrete, American
Concrete Institute, MI, 1979.
[33] BS EN 197-1, Cement. Composition, Specifications and
Conformity Criteria for Common Cements, British
Standards Institution, London, 2011.
[34] BS EN 450–1, Fly Ash for Concrete – Part 1: Definition,
Specifications and Conformity Criteria, British Standards
Institution, London, 2012.
[35] BS EN 12620, Aggregates for Concrete, British Standards
Institution, London, 2013.
[36] BS EN1097-6, Tests for Mechanical and Physical
Properties of Aggregates. Determination of Particle
Density and Water Absorption, British Standards
Institution, London, 2013.
[37] BS EN 934-2:2009+A1, Admixtures for Concrete,
Mortar and Grout. Concrete Admixtures. Definitions,
Requirements, Conformity, Marking and Labelling,
British Standards Institution, London, 2012.
[38] V. Malhotra, High-performance high-volume fly ash
concrete, Concr. Int. 24 (2002), pp. 30–34.
[39] O.S. Baghabra Al-Amoudi and T.O. Abiola, and M.
Maslehuddin, Effect of superplasticizer on plastic
 14    H. A. Alaka et al.
shrinkage of plain and silica fume cement concretes,  
Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006), pp. 642–647.
 [40] H. El-Didamony, M. Heikal, and S. Al-Masry, Effect
of delaying addition time of SMF superplasticizer on  
hydration characteristics of blended cement pastes,
Ceram. - Silikaty 56 (2012), pp. 245–253.
  [41] S. Bouharoun, P. de Caro, I. Dubois, C. Djelal, and Y.  
Vanhove, Effect of a superplasticizer on the properties
of the concrete / oil / formwork interface, Constr. Build.
Mater. 47 (2013), pp. 1137–1144.  
 [42] V. Morin and F. Cohen Tenoudji, A. Feylessoufi and
P. Richard, Superplasticizer effects on setting and
structuration mechanisms of ultrahigh-performance  
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (2001), pp. 63–71.
 [43]  BS EN 206, Concrete. Specification, Performance,
Production and Conformity, British Standards  
Institution, London, 2013.
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development
  [44] BS EN 12350-2, Testing Fresh Concrete Part 2: Slump-  
Test, British Standards Institution, London, 2009.
  [45] G. Chioccio and A.E. Paolini, Optimium time for adding
superplasticizers to portland cement pastes, Cem. Concr.
Res. 15 (1985), pp. 901–908.  
 [46] Y. Malier, High Performance Concrete: From Material to
Structure, CRC Press, London, 1992.  
 [47] T.S. Fisher, A contractor’s guide to superplasticizers,
Concr. Constr. 39 (1994), pp. 547–550.
 [48] BS EN12350-5, Testing Fresh Concrete Part 5: Flow Table  
Test, British Standards Institution, London, 2009.
  [49] BS EN 12390-3, Testing Hardened Concrete. Compressive
Strength of Test Specimens, British Standards Institution,
London, 2009.
 [50] BS EN 12390-5, Testing Hardened Concrete Part
5: Flexural Strength of Test Specimens, The British  
Standards Institution, London, 2009.
[51] BS EN 12390-6, Testing Hardened Concrete Part 6:
Tensile Splitting Strength of Test Specimens, British
Standards Institution, London, 2009.
[52] BS EN 13892-4, Methods of Test for Screed Materials –
Part 4: Determination of Wear Resistance-BCA, British
Standards Institution, London, 2002.
[53] BS EN 13892-1, Methods of Test for Screed Materials –
Part 1: Sampling, Making and Curing Specimens for Test,
British Standards Institution, London, 2002.
[54] P.K. Mehta, High Performance, High Volume Fly Ash
Concrete For Sustainable Development, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA, 2004.
[55]  B. Balakrishnan and A.S.M.A. Awal, Durability
properties of concrete containing high volume malaysian
fly ash, Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 03 (2014),pp. 529–533.
[56] L.K.A. Sear, Properties and Use of Coal Fly Ash: A Valuable
Industrial by-Product, Thomas Telford, London, 2001.
[57] M. Calverley, The design of British airports authority
pavements, International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design, Purdue University, West Lafeyette,
IN, 1977, pp. 97–106.
[58] Department of Transport, Specification for Road and
Bridge Works, H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1976.
[59] H.M.M., T.R. Naik and S.S. Singh, Abrasion resistance
of high-strength concrete made with class C fly ash, ACI
Mater. J. 92 (1995), pp. 649–659.
[60] V. Vassou and R. Kettle, A Summary of the Developments in
the Abrasion Resistance Testing of Industrial Concrete Floors,
in Concrete Floors and Slabs: Proceedings of the International
Seminar held at the University of Dundee, Scotland, UK, on
5-6 September 2002, R.K. Dhir, M.D. Newlands, and T.A.
Harrison, eds., Thomas Telford, London, p. 245.
[61] C.D. Atiş, High volume fly ash abrasion resistant concrete,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (2002), pp. 274–277.